6 On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges as follows: I. OVERVIEW 1. On February 21, 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Defendant MICHAEL D. DROBOT (hereinafter DROBOT ) had entered into a plea agreement in which he admitted running a sophisticated fraud scheme involving the payment of kickbacks to doctors, chiropractors and others who referred patients to Defendant HEALTHSMART PACIFIC, INC. D/B/A PACIFIC HOSPITAL OF LONG BEACH (HEREINAFTER PACIFIC HOSPITAL ) for spinal fusion surgeries and other procedures. The kickbacks added up to tens of millions of dollars and were derived as part of an even larger overarching conspiracy to bilk insurance companies and individuals out of over $500 million, over a five year period, through the submission fraudulent bills for spinal fusion surgeries. This was just the tip of the iceberg as the conspiratorial plot to secure fraudulent profits involved a much wider network of participants and included a plan to manufacture, distribute, sell and implant counterfeit medical devices used in spinal fusion surgeries of patients. 2. At all times herein relevant Plaintiff MARY CAVALIERI (hereafter CAVALIERI ) was a patient of Defendant KHALID AHMED, M.D. (hereinafter AHMED ), an orthopedic surgeon specializing in spinal fusion surgery. Unbeknownst to CALVALIERI, AHMED was a major participant in the conspiracy a surgeon whose selection of hospitals and implantable spinal fixation devices was influenced by the payment of monetary kickbacks. 3. CAVALIERI underwent two separate lumbar fusion procedures, referred to as 360 or anterior/posterior lumbar fusion, fusing the back and front of the spine at two levels. 4. On or about June 26, 2010, CAVALIERI underwent the anterior lumbar interbody fusion ( ALIF ) procedure at Defendant PACIFIC HOSPITAL, which was owned and operated by DROBOT, with AHMED performing the surgery. On information and belief, AHMED selected PACIFIC HOSPITAL as the location of the surgery to receive a kickback of an undisclosed amount paid by or on behalf of Defendants DROBOT and PACIFIC HOSPITAL. In doing so, AHMED agreed to use certain implantable spinal fixation devices supplied to PACIFIC HOSPITAL through DROBOT s sham distributorship of implantable medical devices, COMPLAINT 1

7 Defendant INTERNATIONAL IMPLANTS, LLC (hereinafter II ). II and PACIFIC HOSPITAL regularly obtained implantable spinal fixation devices from Defendant SPINAL SOLUTIONS, LLC (hereinafter SS ), a distributor of medical devices that also manufactured and distributed false, fraudulent, fake, counterfeit, non-fda approved knock-off implantable spinal fixation devices, including screws, rods and interbody cages that were produced in a machine shop in Temecula, California. 5. Three months after the ALIF procedure, on or about September 18, 2010, CAVALIERI underwent the posterior lumbar interbody fusion ( PLIF ) procedure at PACIFIC HOSPITAL with AHMED again performing the surgery. AHMED selected PACIFIC HOSPITAL as the location of the second procedure to receive a second kickback of an undisclosed amount paid by or on behalf of Defendants DROBOT and PACIFIC HOSPITAL. In doing so, AHMED again agreed to use implantable spinal fixation devices supplied to PACIFIC HOSPITAL through II. 6. Due to complications associated with the spinal implants from the first two spinal fusion procedures, CAVALIERI had a third procedure to surgically remove her posterior spinal implants. This procedure was performed by Duncan Q. McBride, M.D. at UCLA medical center. CAVALIERI did not have the two cages implanted into her spine removed or explanted, as it would necessarily reverse the fusion, requiring a refusion procedure, and she was advised that there is substantial risk associated with removing or explanting the interbody cages, including death. 7. CAVALIERI is among thousands of spinal fusion surgery patients in Southern California and elsewhere who had such counterfeit, non-fda approved medical devices implanted into their bodies as a consequence of the systematic pattern of fraud and deceit carried on by Defendants. With respect to CAVALIERI s surgeries, SS supplied implantable spinal fixation hardware. 8. This lawsuit is brought by CAVALIERI in an effort to stop the prevalent fraud and abuse in our healthcare system by certain doctors, hospitals, marketers, and medical device distributors who willfully engaged in fraudulent activity with a conscious disregard for the health, safety, and well-being of individuals in need of medical care, including Plaintiff, in order to promote their own financial gain. She also brings this lawsuit to seek damages for the implantation COMPLAINT 2

8 of foreign objects which were surgically implanted into her spine in the course of her spinal fusion surgeries at PACIFIC HOSPITAL. 9. At the center of the scheme was a systematic pattern of fraud and deceit fueled by the payment of illegal kickbacks, which were in turn derived from illegal profits generated by the fraudulent inflation of health care charges billed to insurers and individuals for the cost of implantable spinal fixation devices used in spinal fusion surgeries. 10. In furtherance of the conspiratorial scheme to unlawfully profit from spinal fusion surgeries, Defendants, and each of them, conspired with and/or aided and abetted one another in connection with the manufacture, distribution, sale and use of counterfeit, non-fda approved spinal fusion hardware that was implanted into the bodies of patients, including Plaintiff, without their knowledge and consent. COMPLAINT 3

9 As a legal result of the concerted wrongful acts of each of the Defendants, CAVALIERI suffered the injuries and damages hereinafter set forth. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12. This Court has jurisdiction over the entire action because this is a civil action where the matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of the Court. The conspiracy to defraud insurance companies that led to the implantation of foreign objects into the body of Plaintiff occurred in or about the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 13. Venue is proper in the County of Los Angeles because the events giving rise to Plaintiff s claims and/or the injuries sustained by Plaintiff arise from tortious acts and/or omissions, which occurred in the County of Los Angeles, State of California and at least one defendant resides in the County of Los Angeles. III. PARTIES A. Plaintiffs 14. CAVALIERI is an individual who, at all times herein relevant, was a resident of Glendora, County of Los Angeles, California. B. Defendants 1. The Hospital and Hospital Related Defendants a. Pacific Hospital 15. Defendant PACIFIC HOSPITAL was, at all times herein relevant, a California corporation with its principal place of business in the County of Los Angeles, at 2776 Pacific Avenue, Long Beach, California. PACIFIC HOSPITAL is a for-profit hospital that specialized in surgeries, particularly spinal and orthopedic surgeries, and has been one of the most prolific in performing spinal fusion surgeries during the past decade. b. Michael D. Drobot 16. DROBOT was a resident of the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California and owned, controlled, and managed PACIFIC HOSPITAL. DROBOT purchased the hospital in 1997 and immediately shifted its focus to spinal care for workers compensation COMPLAINT 4

10 patients. c. Tri-City Hospital 17. At all times herein relevant, Defendant GARDENS REGIONAL HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER INC. d/b/a TRI-CITY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER (hereinafter TRI- CITY ) was and is a hospital located in the County of Los Angeles, at Pioneer Boulevard, Hawaiian Gardens, California. d. Riverside Hospital 18. Defendant RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL (hereinafter RIVERSIDE ) is, and at all times relevant was, a hospital located in the County of Riverside, at 4445 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside, California. RIVERSIDE conducts approximately 10,000 inpatient and outpatient surgeries per year, including spinal fusion surgeries. e. Parkview Hospital 19. Defendant PARKVIEW COMMUNITY HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. (hereinafter PARKVIEW ) is a 193-bed hospital located and doing business in the County of Riverside, at 3865 Jackson Street, Riverside, California. f. St. Bernardine Hospital 20. Defendant ST. BERNARDINE MEDICAL CENTER (hereinafter ST. BERNARDINE ) is a hospital located and doing business in the County of San Bernardino, at 2101 N. Waterman Avenue, San Bernardino, California. ST. BERNARDINE is part of Dignity Health, one of the largest hospital providers in the country and the largest hospital system in the State of California. g. Doe Hospital and Hospital-Related Defendants 21. Plaintiff is ignorant of the names and capacities of additional hospital and hospitalrelated defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, and therefore sue such Defendants by fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of the fictitiously named Defendants once they are ascertained. COMPLAINT 5

11 The Distributor and Distributor-Related Defendants a. Spinal Solutions, LLC 22. At all times relevant, SS was a medical-implant distributorship owned and operated by Defendant ROGER WILLIAMS and his then-wife, Defendant MARY SISLER WILLIAMS. Defendant SS was located and doing business in the County of Riverside, at Jefferson Avenue, Murrieta, California. SS is also a manufacturer defendant. b. Orthopedic Alliance, LLC 23. Defendant ORTHOPEDIC ALLIANCE, LLC (hereinafter OA ) was, at all times herein relevant, another orthopedic device/implant distributorship owned and operated by Defendant ROGER WILLIAMS and his then-wife, Defendant MARY SISLER WILLIAMS, located at Jefferson Avenue, Murrieta, California. OA was a subsidiary of SS, operating at the same facility with the same staff, officers, directors, managers, and inventory. OA is also a manufacturer defendant. c. Roger Williams 24. Defendant ROGER WILLIAMS (hereinafter WILLIAMS ) is an individual who, at all times herein relevant, resided in the County of Riverside, State of California. d. Jeffrey Fields 25. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant JEFFREY FIELDS (hereinafter FIELDS ) was an individual residing in the County of Riverside, California. At all times herein relevant, FIELDS was the Operations Manager of SS and OA. e. Mary Sisler Williams 26. Defendant MARY SISLER WILLIAMS (hereinafter MSW ) was an individual who at all times relevant was the wife of Defendant WILLIAMS and resided in the County of Riverside, California. f. Comprehensive Intra-Operative Services, Inc. 27. Defendant COMPREHENSIVE INTRA-OPERATIVE SYSTEMS, INC. (hereinafter C.I.O.S. ) was at all times relevant a marketer and/or distributor of medical services and/or implantable spinal fixation devices doing business as a sole proprietorship, corporation, or COMPLAINT 6

12 other legal entity in the County of Riverside, California. g. Michael Mic McGrath 28. Defendant MICHAEL MIC McGRATH (hereinafter McGRATH ) was at all times relevant an individual residing in the County of Riverside, California. McGrath owned, operated, and/or controlled Defendant C.I.O.S. with respect to the acts and/or omissions hereinafter set forth. McGRATH also acted as a marketer for TRI-CITY and PACIFIC HOSPITAL through his sham distributorship C.I.O.S. for SS, paying kickbacks to spinal surgeons in exchange for the referral of patients. He is both a distributor and marketer defendant. h. David Tyson 29. Defendant DAVID TYSON (hereinafter TYSON ) was at all times relevant an individual residing in the City of Riverside, County of Riverside, California. TYSON was a sales representative and technician for Defendants SS and C.I.O.S., and was involved in the sale of the purported implantable hardware. i. International Implants, LLC 30. Defendant INTERNATIONAL IMPLANTS, LLC (hereinafter II ) was at all times relevant located at SW Acacia St., Suite 110, Newport Beach California. II was a sham distributorship owned and operated by DROBOT to falsely inflate the cost of implantable hardware on bills submitted to insurers. j. Doe Distributor and Distributor-Related Defendants 31. Plaintiff is ignorant of the names and capacities of additional distributors and distributor-related defendants sued herein as DOES 26 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sue such Defendants by fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of the fictitiously named Defendants once they are ascertained. 3. The Manufacturer and Manufacturer-Related Defendants a. William Crowder 32. At all times herein relevant, Defendant WILLIAM CROWDER (hereinafter CROWDER ) was and is an individual residing in the County of Riverside, California who owns COMPLAINT 7

13 and operates a machine shop doing business as CROWDER MACHINE & TOOL SHOP (hereinafter CROWDER MTS ) in Temecula, California. b. Crowder Machine & Tool Shop 33. At all times herein relevant, Defendant CROWDER MTS was at all times relevant located at Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. The machine shop was owned and operated by CROWDER. c. Doe Manufacturer and Manufacturer-Related Defendants 34. Plaintiff is ignorant of the names and capacities of additional manufacturers and manufacturer-related defendants sued herein as DOES 51 through 75, inclusive, and therefore sue such Defendants by fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of the fictitiously named Defendants once they are ascertained. 4. The Marketer Defendants a. Paul Randall 35. At all times herein relevant, Defendant PAUL RANDALL (hereinafter RANDALL ) was and is an individual residing in the City and County of Orange, California. Defendant RANDALL recruited a network of loyal doctors and chiropractors who would refer spinal cases to Defendant Hospitals in exchange for illegal kickbacks, paying chiropractors and physicians kickbacks of approximately $15,000 each for a spinal fusion referral. RANDALL also, at various times, acted as a distributor of various medical devices, including, but not limited to, implantable spinal fixation devices. b. Doe Marketer Defendants 36. Plaintiff is ignorant of the names and capacities of additional marketer defendants sued herein as DOES 76 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sue such Defendants by fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of the fictitiously named Defendants once they are ascertained. COMPLAINT 8

14 The Doctor Defendants a. Jack Akmakjian, M.D. 37. Defendant JACK AKMAKJIAN, M.D. (hereinafter AKMAKJIAN ) is a spinal surgeon performing surgeries in various hospitals throughout Southern California, including PARKVIEW, TRI-CITY, RCH and PACIFIC HOSPITAL. His principal place of business is located in the City of Riverside, County of Riverside, California. AKMAKJIAN owns and operates ASGOC, which has a principal place of business located in the City of Riverside, County of Riverside, California. b. Gurvinder Sunny Uppal, M.D. 38. Defendant GURVINDER SUNNY UPPAL, M.D. (hereinafter UPPAL ) is a spinal surgeon performing surgeries in the Southern California region. His principal place of business is located in the City of Riverside, County of Riverside, California. c. Khalid Ahmed, M.D. 39. Defendant AHMED is a spinal surgeon performing surgeries in the Southern California region and is the owner and operator of Khalid B. Ahmed Medical Corporation. AHMED s principal place of business is located in Pico Rivera, Los Angeles County, California. d. Doe Doctor Defendants 40. Plaintiff is ignorant of the names and capacities of additional Defendant Doctors sued herein as DOES 101 through 150, inclusive, and therefore sue such Defendants by fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of the fictitiously named Defendants once they are ascertained. C. Doe Defendants 41. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, and each of them, are currently unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues such defendants by such fictitious names and capacities. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that each fictitiously named defendant, whether COMPLAINT 9

15 acting for itself or as an agent, corporation, association, or otherwise, is liable herein. While at this time Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the DOE Defendants, Plaintiff will amend this complaint to show the true names of each when then same has been ascertained. IV. AGENCY AND CONCERT OF ACTION 42. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants and/or DOES 1 through 200, and each of them, hereinabove, were the agents, servants, employees, partners, aiders and abettors, coconspirators, and/or joint venturers of each of the other Defendants named herein and were at all times operating and acting within the purpose and scope of said agency, service, employment, partnership, enterprise, conspiracy, and/or joint venture, and each Defendant has ratified and approved the acts of each of the remaining Defendants. Each of the Defendants aided and abetted, encouraged, and rendered substantial assistance to the other Defendants in wrongfully causing injury and damage to Plaintiffs, as alleged herein. In taking action to aid and abet and substantially assist the commission of these wrongful acts and other wrongdoings complained of, as alleged herein, each of the Defendants acted with an awareness of his/her/its primary wrongdoing and realized that his/her/its conduct would substantially assist the accomplishment of the wrongful conduct, wrongful goals, and wrongdoing. 43. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendants and each of the DOE Defendants are in some manner, responsible for the events and happenings herein set forth and proximately caused injury and damages to the Plaintiff as herein alleged. V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE FRADULENT SCHEME A. Spinal Fusion Surgery 44. Spinal fusion is major surgery to join or fuse two or more vertebrae to prevent movement between the vertebrae. The surgery can be performed either through an incision in the back, the abdomen, or a combination of both. In many cases, spinal fusion procedures involve the implantation of a number of different metal spinal fixation devices, including but not limited to plates, screws, rods, screw caps, and interbody cages, used to hold the vertebrae together until new bone grows between them. COMPLAINT 10

16 ROD As a result of the intrusive nature of the operation, the surgical hardware cannot be removed without reversing the fusion and without significant risk of death or injury to the patient. B. Defendants Fraudulently Inflate Medical Bills to Increase Financial Gains 45. Enacted in or around 2002, California Labor Code Section 5318 was intended by the California State Legislature to be a pass-through provision requiring workers compensation carriers in California to pay 100% of a hospital s documented cost of implantable hardware used in spinal fusion surgeries, plus $250. After the enactment of the legislation, the profits made by manufacturers, distributors and hospitals soared, largely due to the exploitation of the legislation, the creation of sham distributorships, and the inflation of the documented cost of hardware through false and fraudulent invoices and bills. The legislation allowed DROBOT and his hospitals and co-conspirators to force the carriers and others to pay whatever artificial, fraudulent sum was listed on the bills. To accomplish this, DROBOT and others bribed and influenced legislators in Sacramento to pass such legislation as fully set forth in Section V.H. of this complaint. 46. At each stage between manufacture and implantation, the single pedicle screw would be astronomically marked up. For example, a legitimate screw would cost $300 to $500 wholesale, or if counterfeit, it would cost roughly $65 but would be listed on a hospital bill submitted to an insurance company at a cost of over $12,000. COMPLAINT 11

17 Attached as Exhibit 1, and incorporated herein, are true and correct copies of a series of bills and invoices relating to a single surgery that occurred at TRI-CITY, identified as James B. C. The Conspiratorial Scheme is Fueled By the Payment of Kickbacks 47. With the lucrative profits garnered though the conspiracy to defraud carriers, Defendant Hospitals sought to increase their number of spinal fusion surgeries and recruited the assistance of distributors to maximize profit. With the staggering profit made from the illegal scheme, the Hospital Defendants and Distributor Defendants entered into contracts with the Marketer Defendants to pay spinal surgeons and others illegal kickbacks to perform surgeries at Hospital Defendants facilities through sham consulting agreements. Attached are true and correct copies of a sample marketing agreement and a sample consulting agreement as Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3, respectively, and incorporated herein. These illegal kickbacks were funneled through the conspiracy and paid for by the inflated hardware bills. 48. As an example of the money paid to the Marketer Defendants to draw spinal fusion surgeries to the hospitals, TRI-CITY paid RANDALL more than $3.2 million to perform marketing services involving unlawfully capping, running and steering spinal surgery patients COMPLAINT 12

18 and doctors to TRI-CITY between 2008 and As of August 2011, RANDALL entered into a $100,000 per month agreement with DROBOT and PACIFIC HOSPITAL to cap, run and/or steer patients and doctors to PACIFIC HOSPITAL, so that DROBOT, by and through his wholly owned sham distributorship, Defendant II, could artificially and falsely increase the cost of the implantable hardware. PACIFIC HOSPITAL would then prepare a false or fraudulent bill, showing the fraudulently increased cost for the spinal hardware, all to defraud insurance companies out of insurance benefits. 49. As a further example, McGRATH owned and operated C.I.O.S. as a sham distributorship, which sold and distributed implantable spinal fixation devices for SS and OA, and served as a marketer for both TRI-CITY and PACIFIC HOSPITAL. McGRATH profited from this conspiracy to defraud insurance carriers as a distributor of implantable spinal fixation devices, paying kickbacks to surgeons, including, but not limited to, AKMAKJIAN and UPPAL, in exchange for them designating C.I.O.S. supplied implantable hardware for use in spinal fusion surgeries. At the same time, McGRATH profited as a hospital marketer where he was highly compensated for engaging in prohibited capping, running, and steering for hospitals and paying spinal surgeons and others kickbacks for the referral of spinal surgeries to the hospital. 50. The Hospital Defendants also paid kickbacks to health care professionals other than spinal surgeons, including chiropractors and other medical doctors involved in MD/DC or multidisciplinary clinics, often operating as sham medical corporations, in exchange for the referral of potential surgical candidates in which implantable spinal hardware would be required. 51. The Doctor Defendants were regularly paid kickbacks by the Hospital Defendants through the Marketer Defendants in exchange for the referral of surgeries to the hospitals, with the marketers and hospitals paying the surgeons as much as $15,000 per surgery performed. Such kickback activity was intended to: influence medical decision making; incentivize surgeons to classify patients as surgical candidates; influence the medical decision on the number of vertebral levels to be fused; influence the medical decision to use implantable spinal hardware, as well as the selection of the specific implantable fixation devices; influence the medical decision on the specific type of procedure for stabilization of the spine; and influence the medical decision as to whether COMPLAINT 13

19 extraction of implanted hardware is required, among other medical decisions. Under this fraudulent scheme and conspiracy, it was axiomatic that the greater the number of procedures performed, the more the Defendant Doctor would be paid in illegal kickbacks, and the more profit all co-conspirators would derive from the illegal billing scheme. 52. The Doctor Defendants were also paid kickbacks by the Distributor Defendants, to ensure the selection of implantable spinal fixation devices distributed by Defendant Distributors, including those implantable spinal fixation devices which were counterfeit, non-fda approved knock-offs. The kickbacks were paid by the Distributor Defendants specifically to influence the medical decision making of the spinal surgeons and to induce them to select and use products distributed by the Distributor Defendants. 53. Such kickbacks took different forms, including the payment of cash, the purchase of valuable coins, sham consulting agreements, the purchase of sports memorabilia, the entertainment by prostitute sand air travel, all of which was and is prohibited by federal and state laws. For example, WILLIAMS leased or owned a number of airplanes which were used to provide travel and entertainment, free of charge, to various spinal surgeons, including, but not limited to the Doctor Defendants. Flight logs from November 2006 to September 2011, prepared and maintained by pilots paid by WILLIAMS and SS/OA, show that flights were provided to a large number of spinal surgeons, including the Defendant Doctors, and transported medical devices and/or instruments, cash, and prostitutes or other adult entertainers for the spinal surgeons enjoyment. Attached as Exhibit 4 and incorporated herein are true and correct copies of excerpts from flight logs kept by SS pilots. COMPLAINT 14

20 At all times relevant, the payment of prohibited kickbacks, which were paid as rebates, refunds, commissions, preferences, patronage dividends, discounts, or other consideration, whether in the form of money or otherwise, were paid by the Hospital Defendants, Distributor Defendants, and Marketer Defendants to ensure the flow of spinal fusion surgery patients, all in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud insurance carriers. 55. At all times relevant, Defendants, and each of them, knew that the payment of kickbacks was, and is, an activity prohibited by state and federal laws to prevent corruption of the medical profession and ensure that medical decisions were in the best interests of patients, unimpaired and free from the influence of the payment of money. 56. Notwithstanding such knowledge, Defendants knowingly and willingly engaged in the payment or acceptance of kickbacks in various forms, or simply turned a blind-eye to such activity, knowing that such payment was intended to influence the care and treatment of patients, whose health, safety and well-being were subordinated to the Defendants interest in financial gain. In addition, each Defendant engaging in the conspiracy alleged herein knew that the payment of prohibited kickbacks cemented the participants to the conspiracy, subjecting them to extortion or blackmail vis-à-vis licensure, professional and community reputation and standing, and professional, personal and family relationships. 57. The Distributor Defendants and Hospital Defendants attempted to disguise or conceal kickback as payments for consulting services. The Distributor Defendants and Hospital Defendants created false and fraudulent consulting agreements which paid spinal surgeons kickbacks in exchange for using SS or OA distributed product and/or for using specific hospitals without the spinal surgeons performing any of the purported duties of the consulting agreements. 58. To accomplish the goal of the conspiracy, to prepare and present false claims to insurers in connection with the implantable hardware, Defendants, and each of them, made material misrepresentations of fact to insurers, patients, the FDA and others, concealing from them information relating to the conspiracy, including the existence of the kickbacks paid, as herein alleged, and/or that they were participating in a conspiracy to fraudulently inflate the cost of implantable hardware in connection with spinal fusion surgeries. COMPLAINT 15

JAMES W. JOHNSTON ATTORNEY AT LAW 00 S. Flower Street, Suite 10 Los Angeles, California 001 State Bar No. (1) 1- Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,

Case: 3:12-cv-00012-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 01/05/12 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN FATWALLET, INC., a Delaware corporation, v. ANDREW CHIU, an individual, and

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA vs. Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NUMBER CV-99-792 Defendants. COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs, Bryan K. Bunten and Lisa Bunten, are over the age of nineteen (19) years

Case 1:05-cv-01658-CCB Document 1-1 Filed 06/17/2005 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (Northern Division SPRINGFIELD FINANCIAL COMPANY, L.L.C., d/b/a SFC, L.L.C.,

1. PURPOSE CHAMPAIGN COUNTY NURSING HOME SUMMARY OF ANTI-FRAUD AND ABUSE POLICIES Champaign County Nursing Home ( CCNH ) has established anti-fraud and abuse policies to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse

JAMES W. JOHNSTON ATTORNEY AT LAW 00 S. Flower Street, Suite 00 Los Angeles, California 001 State Bar No. (1) 1- Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

April 24, 2008 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE The United States Government and a Georgia Whistleblower Reach a Historic False Claims Act and Stark Settlement Against Memorial Health University Medical Center, the

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION SIMON DOMINGUEZ, PEDRO DOMINGUEZ, JOSE FRANCISCO BRIONES, and ROBERT PEREZ On Behalf of Themselves and All

CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS -----------------------------------X Index No. CV-079576-10/QU LR CREDIT 21, LLC ANSWER Plaintiff, Kenneth Chow - against - Defendant. -----------------------------------X

Case: 1:10-cv-03314 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/30/10 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:63 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION JAMES ROWE, ) individually and on

4:10-cv-00701-TLW Date Filed 03/18/10 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff,

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA MARIA LORENA HERNANDEZ, ) Individually and As Mother and Next ) Friend of AALIYAH ESPARZA, a minor, ) ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ) OTHERS SIMILARLY

Case 2:12-cv-02025-JWL-JPO Document 7 Filed 02/10/12 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO.1 OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, KANSAS, d/b/a, GIRARD MEDICAL

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Please note: This sample document is redacted from an actual research and writing project we did for a customer some time ago. It reflects the law as of the date we completed it. Because

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION If you were injured or provided treatment for an injury and filed a claim under your Allstate Med Pay coverage, and were compensated in an amount

/!.'. '"1" ii;,i;;' UNITED STATES DISTRIdi',cb1:1RT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BRIAN 1. BEATTY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, vs. Plaintiff, JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., J.P. MORGAN

Case 3:10-cv-02236-DRD Document 31 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO DAVID ASHE Plaintiff, CIVIL NO. 10-2236 ( DRD ) vs. DISTRIBUIDORA NORMA,

Pharmacy Fraud, Waste and Abuse Policy 1.0 Compliance Assurance This Fraud Waste and Abuse Policy ( Policy ) reiterates the commitment of this pharmacy to comply with the standards of conduct established

CALIFORNIA FALSE CLAIMS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12650-12656 12650. (a) This article shall be known and may be cited as the False Claims Act. (b) For purposes of this article: (1) "Claim" includes any

CASE 0:12-cv-02811-RHK-SER Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA File No. Julius Chad Zimmerman, Plaintiff, v. Dave Bellows, in his individual and official

Case 1:13-cv-21304-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2013 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff,

Case 4:10-cv-00706 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/04/10 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, v. Plaintiff,

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE HARRY O. LUTZ AND PAULA G. LUTZ; Hon. Case No. v ONE WEST, a successor in interest to INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B.; TITLE SOURCE, INC.; THE MORTGAGE

Trademark Infringement Complaint [Name/Address] Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ALPHA, INC., a Washington corporation, v. Plaintiff, MR, DELTA

Case 1:11-cv-00273-CMA -CBS Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. MIKHAIL MATS, Plaintiff, v. DAVID MAZIN;

FILED IN OPEN COURT U.S.D.C. Atlanta JUN 1 2 2008 JAMES N. HATrEN, Clerk By: ~ Deputy Cterk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DMSION UNITED STATES OF AMEI~ICA) ) ) JAMES

Metropolitan Jewish Health System and its Participating Agencies and Programs [MJHS] POLICY PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005: Detection and Prevention of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse and

Filed 1/9/02; pub. order 1/28/02 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE ISRAEL P. CHAMBI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE REGENTS OF

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, Case No.: v. Plaintiff, BASS PRELITIGATION